But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

an elementary student or a high school dropout could draw up out of timeout basketball plays...completely overrated

Then why is Doc so much better at it than almost all coaches in the league?

yeah because a Paul pierce iso or Rondo to kg alley pop is rocket science....face it they need no coach at all to do these plays

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.

I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.

I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).

You can monkey around with stats to prove almost anything. Sometimes you just gotta look at the bottom line.

Boston's lost 17 games this year. In 10 of those losses, they scored less than 90 points. Even if they were playing excellent defense, there's a pretty good chance they still would have lost most of those games. So if Boston were playing great D, that would only make the difference between being 14-17 and being...what? 16-15? 17-14? 18-13? Better, but still faaaaaar below what just about everyone expected of them this season.

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.

Our ranks in offensive efficiency:

2008: 10th2009: 6th2010: 15th2011: 18th2012: 27th2013: 24th

It's not just pace, then. When regulated per 100 possessions, our offense has been pretty bad for awhile now. Part of that is turnovers, and part is lack of offensive rebounding, but whatever the cause, the offense is broken relative to the rest of the league.

It's way too late to fire Doc. This years Team was constructed, coached and played wrong. Play the season out and clean house after. In 5 years or so Celts will contest again. The Celtics will never attain the level of respect at least from my era ever again. Doc hasn't done a bad job, just not good enough for the Celtics.

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.

I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).

You can monkey around with stats to prove almost anything. Sometimes you just gotta look at the bottom line.

But I mean, what exactly are people proving? Nobody is proving that the C's have a good team this year.

Quote

Boston's lost 17 games this year. In 10 of those losses, they scored less than 90 points. Even if they were playing excellent defense, there's a pretty good chance they still would have lost most of those games. So if Boston were playing great D, that would only make the difference between being 14-17 and being...what? 16-15? 17-14? 18-13? Better, but still faaaaaar below what just about everyone expected of them this season.

Mike

Boston is currently allowing 102.1 points per 100 possessions.

Last season they allowed 95.5, the season before 97.8, the season before that 101.1, before that 99.4, before that 99.4 points per 100 possessions, and KG's first season they allowed a phenomenal 82.2 points per 100 possessions.

If we had had any of those other seasons defensively in place of this one, we'd likely be near the 20-10 mark, just from the points differential.

EDIT: Actually, not true. In a strict 1-for-1 comparison, 09-10 would be a close to .500 year, but the entire league was up that season in terms of scoring.

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th2009: 2nd2010: 4th2011: 1nd2012: 5th2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th2009: 2nd2010: 4th2011: 1nd2012: 5th2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th2009: 2nd2010: 4th2011: 1nd2012: 5th2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense.

Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.

And just anecdotal, that seems to be the case. We have way too many scoring slumps, the offense just disappears completely for long stretches.

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.

I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).

You can monkey around with stats to prove almost anything. Sometimes you just gotta look at the bottom line.

But I mean, what exactly are people proving? Nobody is proving that the C's have a good team this year.

Quote

Boston's lost 17 games this year. In 10 of those losses, they scored less than 90 points. Even if they were playing excellent defense, there's a pretty good chance they still would have lost most of those games. So if Boston were playing great D, that would only make the difference between being 14-17 and being...what? 16-15? 17-14? 18-13? Better, but still faaaaaar below what just about everyone expected of them this season.

Mike

Boston is currently allowing 102.1 points per 100 possessions.

If we're going by points per 100 possessions, Boston's defense is ranked 14th in the league. That's better than Miami. Boston's offense per 100 possessions, though, is tied for 20th. So, even by that standard, it's the offense that's as much or more of a problem than the defense.

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th2009: 2nd2010: 4th2011: 1nd2012: 5th2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.

Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.

Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th2009: 2nd2010: 4th2011: 1nd2012: 5th2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

It's monkeying around with stats when you take ONE stat and declare that it's the ONLY stat that matters and NOTHING else.

Yes, if the ONLY thing we consider is shooting percentages, Boston's offense looks pretty good. However, there are several other factors that are also important in truly determining the quality of a team's offense. I'm not sure what that should be hard for anyone to understand.